GNU bug report logs - #24195
25.0.95; Wrong indentation after a 'less < than' comparison (c++-mode)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 24195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: Arash <pbqbqp <at> gmail.com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>,
 24195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24195: 25.0.95;
 Wrong indentation after a 'less < than' comparison (c++-mode)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:24:43 -0400

tags 24195 wontfix
quit

Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

>> So could we say "<" can't be a template opener when it comes after a
>> close paren except for the close paren of "operator()"?
>
> We could, but I can't see it helping very much (though it might help a
> little bit).
>
> There are probably quite a lot of special cases like that where it is
> possible to say for sure that the "<" does/doesn't introduce a template
> construct.  But that will leave a lot of ambiguous cases.  The more we
> try to analyse these, the closer we get to building a compiler inside CC
> Mode.  For example, the example given might have been "k < l() && ....",
> leaving no syntactic clues about the templateicity of "<".
>
> Analysing the C++ syntax to determine these determinable cases would be
> a lot of work, and it would be a lot of work to implement it, too.
>
> The C++ standards people haven't thought it worthwhile to preserve
> unambigious syntax in their language, so there is no way CC Mode can get
> it right every time.

Makes sense, I've been out of C++ for some time, so I kind of forgot how
ridiculous the syntax is.  Marking as wontfix.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.